If their paths had crossed in a brightly lit convenience store, I don't think Zimmerman would have feared him. By fear I presume you mean "suspected him". He did "fear" him later when he was being assaulting by him.

It's the fact Zimmerman observed him walking in the dark, in the rain and appeared to be scouting the neighborhood. You don't need to be black to look suspicious. If he had been dressed in his church clothes instead of a hoody and heading back home like someone caught in the rain instead of casually walking through it, we wouldn't be talking about this.

He profiled him because what he was wearing and what he was doing. He could have been mexican, asian, white, etc. There's no racial limitations on punks. All races have them. You see someone out aimlessly looking around like they don't belong, you start to look out for trouble.

I'm not saying TM was a punk (he could have been, I don't know and don't care). What I'm saying is that Zimmerman was biased against punks (not blacks). People who vandalize, rob, etc. This is what he didn't like and the only evidence we have supports this.

When I become suspicious of someone, their skin doesn't play anywhere near as big a part as their demeanor, clothes, behavior, body language etc.

I watched hours and hours of the trial and on Youtube the weekend of the verdict, and some of the other statements that didn't end up in trial (ex. Mary Cutter).

The two eye witnesses (Austin Brown and John Good) that saw at least some part of their fight before the gunshot both saw TM on top. Other witnesses testimony points to GZ having no time to fake injuries between the time of the shot and when the police showed up. His injuries support that he was beaten.

There's just nothing to support that GZ "stalked" or "hunted" or intended to kill TM, nor shot in a response to anything more than a serious assault. One good skull bash into the cement and he could have been unconscious and easily killed. Following TM, even asking him what he was doing, even confronting him is not illegal, nor do I think immoral in the context of him being part of the neighborhood watch and there having been a string of burglaries in the neighborhood. The police cannot be everywhere at every time, afterall.

TM could have easily fled. GZ could not have, having been straddled by TM and beaten.

GZ states he was jumped, but even if he hadn't, short of throwing the first punch, or shoving TM, confronting someone, shouting "hey you!" or "what are you doing?" does not give them authority to beat you, and does not mean you give up your right to defend yourself.

The media fucked everything up horribly. From day 1 the media spun it as racially motivated despite very thing evidence for and strong evidence against. You don't hear that GZ's grandmother is black, or that he took a black girl to HS prom, and initially didn't even know he is hispanic. You don't see the pictures from TM's phone showing what is likely his own arm holding a gun, or the pictures of jewelry on a bed. They showed old TM photos with a giant childlike smile on his face, and a dim looking GZ mugshot.

Even now after watching all the weekend political shows (MTP, FTN, TW), not a single person was challenged the avalanche of race baiting and race spinning on the story. It's horrible. So horrible. And now the whole nation is going to pursue it as an racial issue which is flat out ridiculous. It was nothing but an echo chamber of "this was racial" and "gun/stand your ground laws are messed up."

I'm not necessarily thrilled that GZ followed after TM. Probably not a great idea, and something any gun carry permit holder should think really hard about. GZ is lucky that he didn't just misremember one tiny fact when he went on TV the very next day and blathered about it. If he really was the real aggressor here, there sure isn't anything at all to support that.

No matter how you cut it, without getting into wild conspiracy or well off the track of actual evidence this is not a race issue, and GZ is not guilty of any crime. There's been a lot of talk about parent's having to talk to their kids now, and clearly yes, but the part where you tell your kids, "don't jump people, anyone could be legally carrying a gun and shoot your dumb ass" does not need to be predicated on, "you are black."

This entire story is such a monumental farce.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy H.

Some believe that there are problems that exist that simply cannot be solved. I disagree. It is possible to change black attitudes but it will take a dynamic person to lead the way.

The primary reason that Trayvon Martin is not alive today is that George Zimmerman feared him. Making his neighborhood watch rounds, Zimmerman saw a young man wearing clothing that unsettled him. Zimmerman profiled the teenager and from there things rapidly got out of control.

There is a perception in America that young black males can be trouble. According to a study out of Northeastern University, black men between the ages of 14 and 24 commit homicides at a rate ten times that of young white and hispanic males combined. This disturbing fact drives profiling and fear.

The reason that crime among young black males is so intense is the collapse of the traditional black family. Fifty years ago, the out-of-wedlock birth rate among African-Americas was 25%. Today it is nearly 73% and growing, according to the Centers for Disease Control. By contrast, 29% of white babies and 53% of hispanic children are born out-of-wedlock.

Single parent situations drive poverty and often lead to unsupervised kids. Many boys growing up without fathers often feel angry and abandoned. Thus, they seek comfort in all the wrong places.

President Obama and our leaders in Washington surely understand the root of the black crime problem. So do self-appointed civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But they rarely discuss the matter in public. That might anger their constituency and be bad for business.

When was the last time you saw a demonstration discouraging young black girls from getting pregnant outside of marriage? When was the last time the President held a press conference on the issue? When was the last time we saw the federal government put out a public service ad encouraging children to reject drugs and violence?

Maybe Jay Z could do such an ad. How about Lil Wayne? Kanye West? These guys make millions rapping about dubious behavior. Sometimes they glamorize it. So why don't they lead the charge to improve things on the south side of Chicago and other places under siege?

There was plenty of outrage in the black precincts over the Zimmerman verdict. Understandable. But there is little national anger over thousands of African-Americans being gunned down in the streets by out-of-control young men, the vast majority of them black.

Until the American leadership begins to encourage the return of the traditional black family, the enormous problems of black poverty and crime will continue. And the fear of young black men will continue. And the death of innocents will continue.

Maybe Jay Z can rap about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devious21

If their paths had crossed in a brightly lit convenience store, I don't think Zimmerman would have feared him. By fear I presume you mean "suspected him". He did "fear" him later when he was being assaulting by him.

It's the fact Zimmerman observed him walking in the dark, in the rain and appeared to be scouting the neighborhood. You don't need to be black to look suspicious. If he had been dressed in his church clothes instead of a hoody and heading back home like someone caught in the rain instead of casually walking through it, we wouldn't be talking about this.

He profiled him because what he was wearing and what he was doing. He could have been mexican, asian, white, etc. There's no racial limitations on punks. All races have them. You see someone out aimlessly looking around like they don't belong, you start to look out for trouble.

I'm not saying TM was a punk (he could have been, I don't know and don't care). What I'm saying is that Zimmerman was biased against punks (not blacks). People who vandalize, rob, etc. This is what he didn't like and the only evidence we have supports this.

When I become suspicious of someone, their skin doesn't play anywhere near as big a part as their demeanor, clothes, behavior, body language etc.

I can't see how anyone can argue with any of this. In a logical fashion that is.

__________________

"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"

I watched hours and hours of the trial and on Youtube the weekend of the verdict, and some of the other statements that didn't end up in trial (ex. Mary Cutter).

The two eye witnesses (Austin Brown and John Good) that saw at least some part of their fight before the gunshot both saw TM on top. Other witnesses testimony points to GZ having no time to fake injuries between the time of the shot and when the police showed up. His injuries support that he was beaten.

There's just nothing to support that GZ "stalked" or "hunted" or intended to kill TM, nor shot in a response to anything more than a serious assault. One good skull bash into the cement and he could have been unconscious and easily killed. Following TM, even asking him what he was doing, even confronting him is not illegal, nor do I think immoral in the context of him being part of the neighborhood watch and there having been a string of burglaries in the neighborhood. The police cannot be everywhere at every time, afterall.

TM could have easily fled. GZ could not have, having been straddled by TM and beaten.

GZ states he was jumped, but even if he hadn't, short of throwing the first punch, or shoving TM, confronting someone, shouting "hey you!" or "what are you doing?" does not give them authority to beat you, and does not mean you give up your right to defend yourself.

The media fucked everything up horribly. From day 1 the media spun it as racially motivated despite very thing evidence for and strong evidence against. You don't hear that GZ's grandmother is black, or that he took a black girl to HS prom, and initially didn't even know he is hispanic. You don't see the pictures from TM's phone showing what is likely his own arm holding a gun, or the pictures of jewelry on a bed. They showed old TM photos with a giant childlike smile on his face, and a dim looking GZ mugshot.

Even now after watching all the weekend political shows (MTP, FTN, TW), not a single person was challenged the avalanche of race baiting and race spinning on the story. It's horrible. So horrible. And now the whole nation is going to pursue it as an racial issue which is flat out ridiculous. It was nothing but an echo chamber of "this was racial" and "gun/stand your ground laws are messed up."

I'm not necessarily thrilled that GZ followed after TM. Probably not a great idea, and something any gun carry permit holder should think really hard about. GZ is lucky that he didn't just misremember one tiny fact when he went on TV the very next day and blathered about it. If he really was the real aggressor here, there sure isn't anything at all to support that.

No matter how you cut it, without getting into wild conspiracy or well off the track of actual evidence this is not a race issue, and GZ is not guilty of any crime. There's been a lot of talk about parent's having to talk to their kids now, and clearly yes, but the part where you tell your kids, "don't jump people, anyone could be legally carrying a gun and shoot your dumb ass" does not need to be predicated on, "you are black."

What do you mean? It is their fault! The progressive liberal mainstream in-the-tank-for-Obama media, democrats, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, etc. I mean, which democrats wore hoodies to speak on the floor in congress? Un effing believable. If you stopped getting your news from the huffington post, media matters and the lame stream media you would know otherwise.

BTW I suppose you would say it was capitalism that caused the the bankruptcy of Detroit. Oh no, definitely not the liberal run Detroit government and unions. Oh no, it was definitely capitalism!

In the meantime, Los Angeles is next. And of course, it is because of capitalism. Debating you is like debating a rock. Of course, ignorance is bliss. Right, I dunno? Your name is very appropriate.

What do you mean? It is their fault! The progressive liberal mainstream in-the-tank-for-Obama media, democrats, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, etc. duh!

BTW I suppose you would say it was capitalism that caused the the bankruptcy of Detroit. Oh no, definitely not the liberal run Detroit government and unions. Oh no, it was definitely capitalism!

In the meantime, Los Angeles is next. And of course, it is because of capitalism. Debating you is like debating a rock. Of course, ignorance is bliss. Right, I dunno? Your name is very appropriate.

jeez i was only trying to give you a compliment for not using dogmatic arguments in your well written post about TM. i dont want to stray off topic but i never said capitalism is the sole reason for bankrupcy. it's never simple enough to blame a single factor. i dont want to continue this here so i'll just pm you and not spam this thread

I gotta ask the folks who carry concealed... where on earth do you guys live? Some of these hypothetical scenarios like I'm out getting ice cream with the wife and I encounter drunken dudes who ask for trouble, how do you even come up with this? I have no problems with gun ownership, but some of the reasons to conceal carry are so far fetched IMHO. I have two tours in Somalia under my belt, and I'm pretty confident that I can handle a bunch of drunken dudes, but not if everybody starts packing heat.

I believe in standing your ground and self defense, and I also believe in walking away, but outside the military I never felt the need to carry a firearm.

Well, personally my gun has saved me from a group of three attackers (one who was carrying a tire iron) once before (thankfully pulling the gun scared them off and I didn't have to shoot). Another time I was almost robbed while showing my motorcycle to a guy who called me after I put a for sale add for it in the paper.

There are many times when you may need a gun to defend yourself, just look at all of the robbery/rape/murder victims in this country each year. I also encourage all of the women in my life to carry guns for protection, obviously women are often preyed upon, and the ability to be armed gives them a chance against a larger and stronger attacker.

Its very sad to hear and see that they main reason was "race"! If it was the other way around would it be racist or if both people were of the same race what would you call it? How about if the other person is Asian?
Usually if there is a black and white person involve in altercations, its right away race, can't these two people fight without being racist? I personally think that is that is just a stupid reason to fight over. Not saying racism doesn't exist but when there is crime it seems to be the "reasonable" explanation and of course the media will just fuel it.